Peter Roskam

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 364, flight was delayed due to weather. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.''

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank Chairman Tiberi. Mr. Speaker, one of two things is going to happen: we are either going to lean forward and claim the best days of America, which are ahead of us, or we are going to recede from those. The choice is here and the choice is today, and I urge us to move forward because I truly believe, if we pursue an aggressive trade agenda and if the United States leads on that trade agenda, I think good things are going to happen. There is another part of this story, Mr. Speaker, as we have an opportunity to make history today as well. Included in the TPA is bipartisan legislation that I authored to shield Israel from being the victim of the insidious boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement that is brewing within Europe. This would be the first time in nearly four decades that Congress has taken action to combat boycotts against Israel. Just last week, we saw a telecom giant, Orange, which is a company partially owned by the French Government, recede back from doing business in Israel and so forth based on BDS pressure. The language I offered that was unanimously adopted is simple: If you want to trade with the United States, you can't boycott Israel. I want to thank Chairman Ryan and Chairman Tiberi for their leadership and Representative Vargas and Senators Portman and Cardin for working with me on these important issues.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to recognize Chase Ewoldt, a brave, strong, and exceptional young man from the Sixth District of Illinois. Chase was recently named one of the five ambassadors nationwide for the St. Baldrick's foundation. In July 2012, at the age of two, Chase was diagnosed with a rare, aggressive brain and spinal cancer. Experts believe this specific type of cancer is found in just 100 to 200 new patients every year in the United States and Chase was only given a 20% chance of survival. Over the next 14 months, his family and friends watched him undergo punishing cancer therapy every two to three weeks. Most of his time was spent in and out of hospitals. Nevertheless, Chase beat the odds and survived. In August of 2013 there was no longer any sign of the disease in his body. Chase is not completely out of the woods, and will most likely struggle with aspects of the disease for the rest of his life, but for now the family is celebrating his health and trying to raise awareness about pediatric cancer, a testament not only to Chase's strength and resilience, but also the entire family's compassion and determination to help others. Chase is an inspiration to all with cancer and I am sure he will continue to be a light for those in darkness. As Chase told his mother, ``I am a survivor''. Let us celebrate the life of this survivor. Mr. Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in honoring and celebrating Chase Ewoldt's nomination as a nationwide ambassador for the St. Baldrick's foundation.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the incorporation of Barrington, Illinois. From its early origins, Barrington has been a model for other cities and towns to follow, through its continued dedication to building a friendly and welcoming community for residents and visitors alike. It is no surprise that the village motto is, ``A great place to live, work and play''. In the years since its first mayor, Homer Wilmarth, and its incorporation in 1865, Barrington has become a center of culture and commerce, serving as a home to families, businesses, professionals, churches and organizations that have made this a vibrant and thriving community. What once started as a small railroad community now boasts a population of over 10,000 people. Over the years, Barrington has developed a well-deserved reputation as a village with hometown charm and small-town heritage. On the occasion of this 150th Anniversary, we join together to celebrate Barrington's legacy of growth and prosperity and to look ahead to the opportunities facing this great city and our nation. Today both marks 150 years of working together to build a brighter future, and reminds us that our work continues. Mr. Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in recognizing the 150th anniversary of the incorporation of Barrington, Illinois and wishing her residents a very successful year ahead.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 25, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake hit Nepal--the most powerful earthquake in the region in nearly a century. Estimates are that 5,000 people have perished and that thousands more are injured or are missing. This week, here in Washington, the House Democracy Partnership is hosting a multilateral conference, which includes a delegation of parliamentary staff from Nepal. On behalf of Congressman Price, who leads the House Democracy Partnership with me, and Congressman Crenshaw and Congressman Polis, who chair the Congressional Nepal Caucus, we wish to extend the condolences of the House to the people of Nepal and pledge our continued support and cooperation as they embark on the long road of rebuilding and recovery. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Members of the House now rise and observe a moment of silence in solidarity with the people of Nepal.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated servant of higher education from the state of Illinois, Dr. S. Alan Ray. In June, Dr. Ray will conclude his service as President of Elmhurst College. During his tenure as President, Dr. Ray has been an exemplary leader and servant of Elmhurst College. He created the first comprehensive strategic planning process in the school's history. The Elmhurst College Strategic Plan 2009-2014 clarified and systemized the College's core values and beliefs and charted a course for the College's institutional growth during those years. He has since created a second strategic plan, with the help of the school's trustees, to lay out the groundwork for academic and institutional growth through the year 2020. Dr. Ray's strategic vision and dedicated execution have strengthened Elmhurst College and better served countless students. Under Dr. Ray's direction, Elmhurst College has grown significantly. It increased its full-time faculty, greatly increased its minority student population, and launched a school of professional studies, which specializes in graduate and adult education. The College has also completed construction and renovation projects, including the Elmhurst College Simulation Center at Elmhurst Memorial Hospital. The simulation center is a state-of-the-art facility built to improve nurses' clinical knowledge and skills through active, hands-on clinical scenarios. Dr. Ray's long and distinguished tenure at Elmhurst College has been a time of dynamic growth for the institution and academic excellence for its student population. Elmhurst College has solidified its place as an integral part of our local community and an excellent place to study and receive training for a successful career. Mr. Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in congratulating Dr. S. Alan Ray on his seven years of service to Elmhurst College and in wishing him all the best for the new chapter on which he is about to embark.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. We have prayer meetings. And the IRS said: In writing, under penalty of perjury, tell us about your prayer meetings. The hair on the back of my neck is tingling at this moment as I am describing this to you because it is so scandalous.

Mr. ROSKAM. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ROSKAM. So can you imagine that? You are a nice little group, minding your own business, in Iowa, with a point of view, and the Internal Revenue Service starts roughing you up? This targeting is insidious. This targeting is poisonous. This targeting is without a defender. There is nobody who is getting up on this floor today--no voice is saying, ``Oh, yes. Let him do it. It is fine. It will all settle out.'' Not the ranking member, he is not defending this. There was nobody. Not the chairman, he is not defending this. Everybody in this House should all be saying that we all have the right to come in and make our arguments and try to persuade the public to vote for us, and it should be never a bureaucrat who manipulates and uses power to an end and abuses somebody who, by good faith, is coming into this process. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation. I urge its passage.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you a story. I want to take you back to 1996. A friend of mine in Illinois, my former law partner, Al Salvi, was running for the United States Senate. He loaned himself some money to his campaign. The Federal Election Commission--a different agency than we are talking about, but stick with me. This is like a 'Seinfeld' episode. It is all going to come together at the end. The Federal Election Commission said: You did that the wrong way. You violated Federal election law. They placed him under investigation. World War II headlines in the Chicago papers. He goes on, and he loses the election for the United States Senate. Now, political scientists can debate whether he would have won or whether he would have lost, but let's face it, being under investigation by the Federal Election Commission generally does not help you win a political campaign. At the end of that campaign, the Federal Election Commission came and they made a very large settlement demand. I don't remember off the top of my head how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they were demanding from him, but he said: I didn't do anything wrong, and I am not going to pay you any money. The Federal Election Commission said: That is fine. We are going to sue you--which they did. They filed a lawsuit against him in Federal court. A Federal judge reads the pleadings, dismisses the case--against the Federal Election Commission--and finds in favor of Al Salvi. You would think that this drama all ended there. Oh, no, no, no. The Federal Election Commission came back, and they said: Well, we know you won, but we are still going to make a settlement demand of you. We are going to lower the amount, but we are still going to make a demand because, if you don't pay us, we are going to appeal the judge's ruling. Al Salvi is a pretty sophisticated lawyer. He talked to the lawyer at the other end of the line and said to that person: Let me talk to the person who had authority on this case because you don't understand. I won; you lost. I am not going to pay you any money. Let me talk to the person with authority on the case at the Federal Election Commission. That person got on the phone with Al Salvi and said this: If you pledge never to run for office again, we will drop this case. Al Salvi said: Put that in writing. The person said: We don't put that in writing, and we never lose. That person was Lois Lerner. Now, you take that disposition, you take that attitude, you take that long arm of a bureaucrat who reaches into the sanctity of the ballot booth, and you've got a real problem. And you up the wattage on that, you move her over and you give her the type of authority that not the Federal Election Commission has, but the Internal Revenue Service to grab somebody by the throat and to do whatever they want with them, with the possibility of imprisoning them, that is a problem. That is a problem that the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Renacci, is trying to make go away. We had a hearing in the last Congress. I hear a lot of testimony. We all hear a lot of testimony. But this testimony was inspirational to me because these were people that came in before our committee. Committee members, you will remember this. They told us about how they had been targeted. But you know what was the most incredible thing? They kept faith with their country when it didn't look like their country had kept faith with them. They said: This isn't America. My America doesn't target me. My America doesn't shun me out of the public square. But you know the one that got the most attention in my mind was the pro-life group in Iowa who was asked by the Internal Revenue Service: Tell us about your organization; tell us about your activity. They gave a list of activities, and one of the activities they said was: We have prayer meetings.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is a very sobering thing to get a letter from the Internal Revenue Service and to not know what is inside. It is one thing if you go to the mailbox, and it is one of those ones that is a little bit colorful, and you say, Hey, that is a tax refund in there, and isn't that a delightful piece of mail? Everybody is happy to see that. Yet, when you get one of those other ones that is black and white and has all of that sort of nefarious print--and you know the kind I mean--it sends a chill through you. Now, why does it send a chill through you? It sends a chill through you based on sort of the past disposition of the Internal Revenue Service. You get this feeling of: Is this an organization--is this an entity?--which has unbelievable authority? Are they being fair? Are they treating me, as a taxpayer, the way I ought to be treated? The reason this becomes so important is that we have got a tax compliance system in the United States 99 percent of which is voluntary. It is a remarkable thing that 99 percent of American taxpayers voluntarily pay their taxes, and yet they are paying taxes into a system in which their confidence is shaken, and it is shaken grievously. It is shaken so much that, on a bipartisan basis, Mr. Speaker, the Ways and Means Committee reported out on a voice vote these things on which Republicans and Democrats have come together. They have said we know one thing: we know what impunity looks like when we see it, and we see impunity has seeped into the culture at the Internal Revenue Service, and on a bipartisan basis, we are going to do something about it. I think this deeply resonates with the American public. H.R. 1058, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act of 2015, has received input and support from Nina Olson of the National Taxpayer Advocate. Mr. Speaker, let me read a couple of sentences that she said about this. She says: ``A Taxpayer Bill of Rights would provide taxpayers with critical information to assist them in their dealings with the IRS, provide the IRS with foundational principles to guide employees in their dealings with taxpayers, and serve as a benchmark to help the IRS leadership and Congress monitor the extent of the agency's compliance with these rights.'' In just the height of gracious understatement, she says this: ``After a difficult period for the IRS, a Taxpayer Bill of Rights has the potential to restore taxpayers' trust in both the IRS and the tax system.'' Mr. Speaker, here is what the Taxpayer Bill of Rights calls for. These would then be enumerated rights the taxpayers would have, and under this legislation, it would be the responsibility of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to make sure that these would be in place and that employees would be familiar with these and that the Internal Revenue Service would be acting in accordance with them. It is a list. Let me read it. It is brief, and you are going to love it: The right to be informed; the right to quality service; the right to pay no more tax than the correct amount of tax; the right to challenge the position of the Internal Revenue Service and to be heard; the right to appeal a decision of the Internal Revenue Service in an independent forum; the right to finality; the right to privacy; the right to confidentiality; the right to retain representation; and the right to a fair and just tax system. Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility in Congress, and that is to recognize our role in this whole enterprise. Clearly, what has happened is the American public has delegated authority to us, their elected representatives. We, in turn, and some of our predecessors, have delegated that authority to the Internal Revenue Service. I would argue--and, I think, on a bipartisan basis that argument is echoed-- that that authority has been abused. All right. So then what is the remedy? The remedy is Congress comes together, as reflecting the American public, and it says, We are going to reclaim this. We are going to make this right. There is a whole series of bills today that, I think, will enjoy very, very strong support out of the House. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the theme that Chairman Ryan articulated. He said that we are reminded today that the Internal Revenue Service works for the public. The public does not work for the Internal Revenue Service. I think that today's debate and the focus with which we on a bipartisan basis come to this is meant to do a couple of things. It is meant to restore confidence in an agency whose confidence has been undermined. It is meant to assert and assume a responsibility that we in Congress have, and it is meant to restore the confidence of the American people in the democratic process on an overall basis. I thank the chairman for his leadership in bringing these bills before the committee, and I urge the passage of H.R. 1058.

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member, which are that the American public has an expectation that they are going to be treated with respect and with dignity. With that, I urge the passage of H.R. 1058.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. One of the questions I get at home a lot is: How did the Lois Lerner scandal happen? How did it come to pass that that happened, and how do you make sure that it doesn't happen again? Mr. Marchant's bill doesn't deal necessarily with Lois Lerner 1.0, but it deals with Lois Lerner 2.0. So it is a prohibition against this very cavalier attitude that we have seen coming from the Internal Revenue Service, and that is to be cavalier about taxpayer information. It hasn't just been leaked through emails. It has been leaked in other sources and in other ways and shapes and iterations, but the effect is the same, and the effect is devastating. So this takes away any ambiguity that somebody can use their own private email account and begin to do official activity. If that is the bright line that is necessary, that is the bright line that Mr. Marchant's bill creates. So what we want to make sure is that we do more than simply say Lois doesn't work here anymore, as if that is the remedy, but to actually change these underlying policies, reclaim this authority, and make sure that this can never happen again.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, you are noticing a theme here, and that is intimidation and impunity. That is a bad combination when a culture of impunity develops and an agency says: We can do what we want, when we want, and how we want to; and we can intimidate who we want, how we want, and when we want to. Said another way, here is what the IRS did: the IRS broke the law, and then they used the law to conceal it. They broke the law, and they used the law. That is a manipulation. That is a manipulation that no side of this Congress is going to stand for. That is a manipulation that has to be answered. That is a manipulation that has to be put down, that we cannot be complicit with. You cannot break the law and then use the law to conceal it. That is exactly what happened in this case. In other words, the IRS releases this information in violation of the law; and then, when they are asked about it, they say: Well, we would just love to tell you about it, but it is against the law for us to tell you about it. That is ridiculous. That is so jarring that now we have had a situation and we have had a culture that has developed over a period of time at the Internal Revenue Service where breaking the law and using the law to conceal it is considered what? It is considered normal. I am proud of the House today because the sensibilities of the House of Representatives is to say that is not normal, that is not acceptable, that is not right, and that will not be tolerated.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. This is a classic example of the IRS basically putting the American taxpayers in a nice little cul de sac. They would come in; you would have a process, and they would review something and so forth and so on. Then rather than moving you through where you could get a disposition, rather than moving you through to where you could get an answer, rather than moving you through so you knew that there was somebody unbiased that was looking at something, they essentially moved you into a cul de sac and just kind of let you walk around the neighborhood for a while and not particularly caring about the disposition of this. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, these bills that we are discussing today, many of them were authored and have been highlighted and brainstormed by Dr. Charles Boustany, the former chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee. And now, on a bipartisan basis, folks have come together. So I want to congratulate Mr. Meehan for the procedure by which this has now been expedited and the expectation that people will be fairly considered and fairly reviewed and that they won't be stuck in a cul- de-sac with no way out.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Ryan for yielding. Congressman Holding's idea is a great idea, and we should enact it with dispatch and get it done with. And the reason is, according to the IRS, their 2014 data book--this is published by the Internal Revenue Service--they have said that they have spent 10,000 hours reviewing 4,000 applications for 501(c)(4) organizations, which sounds sort of interesting. Except there is a plot trap. And you know what the plot trap is? They only said ``no'' to eight of them. So, said another way, the way Peter Roskam thinks about the world, that is 10,000 hours of a complete waste of time. That is 10,000 hours from an organization that is saying, Oh, we are just begging for mercy, and we are not able to meet these claims, and we are not able to make these calls. Now, I have got an email here that the Commissioner sent out to all the IRS employees at the beginning of this year. It is January 13, 2015. And you know how normally, around a dinner table, when people say, Hey, you know, it is getting really tough out there. We are going to have to do what? We are going to have do more with less. That is what we do, as Americans, don't we? We do more with less. That is who we are as a people. But that is not the Internal Revenue Service. Oh, no, no, no, no, no. They don't disappoint. You know what the Internal Revenue Service says? We are going to do less with less. We are going to do less with less. So this is an organization, now, that has spent 10,000 hours of taxpayer time, completely squandering it. Stay tuned next week, and come to the Oversight Subcommittee, where you are not going to be disappointed when you learn more things about the IRS budget and some of the things that we are going to be discussing. But my point is this: Representative Holding's concept says, this is a complete waste of time. Let's clean this up. Let's free up 10,000 hours so that we can do more with less and reject the IRS notion that the best that they can do is to do less with less.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I have a riddle for you: What is it that brings together the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Prosperity, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Tea Party Patriots all under one tent? Mr. Speaker, it is the Fair Treatment for All Gifts Act, H.R. 1104. Here is the point. This is why all these groups from a wide range of political perspectives have all come together. They have come together because the IRS has started sniffing around about the possibility of doing something that every one of those groups really finds jarring, and that is assessing a tax liability on gifts to nonprofit organizations. Now, you would have thought that this would be pretty settled doctrine, that gifts to nonprofit organizations, those types of contributions, are not taxable events. Yet the Internal Revenue Service wrote a letter. It is this type of letter. It is the kind of letter that I described in an earlier bill. You get it, and it is very unsettling, Mr. Speaker. They just wrote some donor, and they said, Your gift tax return was assigned to me for examination. The IRS has received information that you donated cash to some organization, and it begins to lay out a theory as to why this should be a taxable event. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a taxable event. Mr. Speaker, this should not be ambiguous. And, Mr. Speaker, the Internal Revenue Service should not be wasting its precious time, which it seems to have so little of; shouldn't be going after American donors to all kinds of groups--left, right, center, up, down, any which way--and giving them a hard time about the contributions that they are making. One final point. We have got a system, Mr. Speaker, that depends on the generosity of Americans. The American public is an incredibly generous group. The American public is sacrificial in their giving in many ways, and the donations and the generosity of the American public is absolutely foundational for our civic life. So, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1104 clarifies that, and it says donations to those tax-exempt organizations under 501(c)(4), (5), and (6) of the Tax Code are not taxable.

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I want to make one other point to echo something Chairman Ryan said as it relates to civil society, and it is an important thing to think about. There is the Federal Government here, and there is the individual here. The only thing that sort of comes in between as a buffer--there are a couple of things. One is family. I think that is a very important buffer. The other buffer is civil society. It is a restraining influence, the capability of individual, family, and civil society to push back. So we are on the floor today, and we have been interacting with John Lewis, our friend from Georgia, who has a reputation that is unbelievable, and it is an honor and a privilege to serve with him. Why? Because of the work that he did in the civil rights movement. It is an inspiration. But can you imagine what it would have been like if a bureaucrat at the time had said, Well, I am just going to send one of these kind of letters to the donors of the NAACP or any of these organizations? Can you imagine what happens? Here is my second point. A letter like this? What does it do? It has a chilling effect, doesn't it? All of a sudden you have donors who say, I don't know, I don't know. This is going to be a taxable event. Well, maybe I am not going to give. Or I am going to end up on some list, I don't know. Or I am going to find my name in the paper in this way, and I don't want my name in the paper. Whatever it happens to be. But the impact and the damage, Mr. Speaker, is the same. It has a chilling effect, doesn't it? Here is the final point. The IRS backed off really fast on this once we asked about it. This wasn't a situation where they doubled down, they said, Oh, no, no, no, the statute that you all passed absolutely gives us this authority. They backed off, and they said, No, we are not going to do that anymore. That tells you something too, doesn't it? It tells you that the ground upon which they thought they were operating was pretty soft ground. So let me just conclude by saying this. Today, the nature of this debate, the intensity that you have heard from both sides of the aisle, the Members are reflecting not ourselves and just our world view, Mr. Speaker, but we are reflecting what we are hearing at home, and we are reflecting the desire of the American public who want to have confidence in these institutions. They want to know that the tax- collecting body of the United States that is the Internal Revenue Service is just going to collect the taxes and is not going to mess with them and is not going to put them through all kinds of paces and manipulate them and make their lives miserable and actually abuse power. That is all they want. Isn't that a very real expectation? It is not asking too much. So my suspicion is that the debate today--and it is my hope that the other body will pick up these bills and move forward on them, recognize the bipartisan nature of them and recognize the timeliness and the ripeness of them. These need to be fixed. These problems need to be fixed now. There is an urgency to them. But this is not a false claim that this work is completed. In fact, this is going to be a work in process, because it is our responsibility to get an Internal Revenue Service that moves away from the disposition and the attitude of impunity--which is saturated up until now--back to where it should be. I think we can do it. I am confident with the bipartisan support in this House we can reflect back and say April 15 of this year, this was a good day.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Cathy Perkowitz, an extraordinary woman from the sixth district of Illinois. Recently, the Alzheimer's Association named Cathy the 2015 Outstanding Advocate of the Year. This award is given to an advocate who has a deep commitment and strong passion for the Alzheimer's cause. Cathy's husband, Bill, was diagnosed with younger-onset Alzheimer's in 2006 at the age of fifty two. Cathy has been actively involved with the Alzheimer's Association since 2009. Since then, she has dedicated herself to caring for her husband and advocating on behalf of those with Alzheimer's disease. She has been an Alzheimer's Ambassador since the program's inception in 2010 and recently traveled to Springfield, Illinois to attend her sixth straight lobby day on behalf of the Alzheimer's cause. During her time as an Alzheimer's advocate, Cathy has worked to develop strong personal relationships with elected officials. I can personally speak to this. Cathy was kind enough to invite me to visit her husband Bill in his long-term care facility. This was a special experience for me, and I am grateful for Cathy and her family's willingness to help me understand what it's like to live with and care for someone with Alzheimer's. Not many people are willing to open their lives up that way. Cathy's involvement also stretches beyond the advocacy field. She is active in a local younger-onset caregiver support group since 2006, when there were less than twelve contributors. Now, Cathy is one of seventy. She also participates in the Walk to End Alzheimer's and her team has been the top fundraiser for the past three years. Since that fateful news in 2006, she has dedicated her life to the Alzheimer's cause. Cathy is the true definition of an advocate. Mr. Speaker, and distinguished colleagues, please join me in congratulating Cathy Perkowitz on receiving this distinct honor and wishing her and her family many future successes as they continue their advocacy on behalf of those with Alzheimer's disease.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 130/131 my flight was cancelled due to inclement weather. Had I been present, I would have voted Aye on both.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to voice my strong support for S.J. Res. 8 and I plan to vote yes today. Late last year, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finalized a new rule empowering unions with the ability to hold ``ambush elections.'' Whereas the current median amount of time to prepare for union elections is 38 days, this rule dramatically lowers the time to as few as 11 days. This does a great disservice to both employers and workers, who would have little time to adequately prepare for elections, much less to communicate and understand the pros and cons of such a move. Even more dangerously, the ambush elections rule also requires employers to hand over workers' personal information without their consent, including cell phone numbers, email and home address, and work schedules. This is a grave breach of privacy, with inadequate protections for how that information is handled, and could subject workers who oppose joining the union to intimidation tactics at all hours of the day, no matter where they are. I strongly support this joint resolution of disapproval and want that support to be made part of the record. I hope the President realizes the folly of this misguided and dangerous regulation and signs this resolution into law now that it has passed both the House and Senate.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 128 due to a death in the family, I was unable to make the vote on S.J. Res. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 94 I was detained due to an unavoidable conflict. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 92, I was detained due to an unavoidable conflict. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.